Sanchez v Mitchell (No. 2)

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Lewis, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 09 April 1970
• Neutral Citation: LC 1970 CA 8
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1970
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 09 April 1970

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J.; Cecil Lewis, J.A.; St. Bernard, J.A.

Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1970

Sanchez

and

Mitchell (No. 2)

Appearances:

K. Monplaisir for plaintiff/petitioner

D. McNamara, Q.C, for defendant/respondent

Kenneth Monplaisir for the plaintiff/appellant.

Desmond A McNamara Q.C. for the defendant.

Practice and procedure - Appeal against decision of Puisne Judge refusing extension of time for filing pleadings — Whether appeal properly before the court — Supreme Court Act, s.26(2)(g) — Court held that appeal from interlocutory order to be made with leave of court — Leave not granted and application out of time — Application dismissed.

Lewis, C.J.

1 This is an appeal against an order of the Puisne Judge refusing extension of time within which to file a reply. The appeal is not properly before the court first of all because being an appeal from an interlocutory order it could not be filed without the leave either of the judge who made the order, or of the Court of Appeal, and leave has not been granted. This results from s.26(2)(g) of the Supreme Court Act.

2 It is also out of time because an application for leave would have had to be made within fourteen days of the date of the judgments and this has not been done. Learned counsel for the appellant has conceded both these matters.

3 The courts having read the leaned Judge's reasons, felt great sympathy with the appellant and indicated this to the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent has now indicated to the court that although at the time when service was sought to be effected upon the solicitors for the defendant, they were not in a position to consent to service outside of the prescribed delays, they are now in a position to do say and that they are willing to accept service. That being so, there is no need under s.143 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the leave of the judge to be obtained, because under that section, as long as the parties consents the document may be filed out of time.

4 The court does not consider that it is really necessary to do anything further than to dismiss this appeal; but the court thinks that it is desirable, since we have been informed there has been some cloud over the meaning of Article 143 in the past, to state that service upon the defendant's solicitors in the suit before the High Court, if accented by the defendant's solicitors, would be good service within the meaning of s.143 and the reply...